APHC010654312023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.33717 of 2023 Between: 1. SODE BHIMAIAH, S/O VEERAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O 1-00, NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, KUNAVARAM MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMRAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. SODE RAMANAIAH, S/O VEERAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS, R/0 2- 34, NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, KUNAVARAM MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMRAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. SODE RAMULAMMA, S/O VEERAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O 2- 34, NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, KUNAVARAM MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMRAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. SODE BUCHIRAJU, S/0 VEERAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O 2- 32/A, NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, KUNAVARAM MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMRAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (L AND A), 4TH BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, ROOM NO.135, A.P SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, ARNARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OF ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (L.A.), POLAVARAM IRRIGATION PROJECT, KUNAVARAM UNIT, CHINTURU, CHINTURU MANDAL ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, , INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CHINTURU, CHINTURU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMRAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAMPACHODAVARAM, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE THASILDAR, KAUNAVARAM MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. SMT SODE SEETHAMMA, W/0 KAMESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC COOK IN SOCIAL WELFARE GIRLS HOSTEL R/OBHADRACHALAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL BHADRADRIKOTHAGUDERN DISTRICT, TELANGANA ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order of direction particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in passing the impugned proceedings vide its File No. 491/2023/Lands Dated 29/11/2023 duly permitting the unofficial respondent for drawing share of Rs 82,00,000/ after passing award is as illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also violations of Article 14,16,19 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent duly directing them not to freeze the award amount kept pending in the petitioners bank. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) 2. V BABY RANI The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 Constitution of India for the following relief: "….to issue a Writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in passing the impugned proceedings vide its File No.491/2023/Lands dated 29.11.2023 duly permitting the unofficial respondent for drawing share of Rs 82 00 000/ after passing an award is as illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also violations of Article 14, 16, 19 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the impugned order of the 2nd respondent duly directing them not to freeze the award amount kept pending in the petitioners bank..." 2. Brief Narration of facts: The Irrigation Department conducted a survey and found that a total of 559.05 acres of land would be submerged under the Polavaram Irrigation Project. Subsequently, they determined that the actual extent of land affected is 397.13 acres, which includes 303.62 acres of patta land, 47.70 acres of government land, and 45.81 acres of assigned land. Out of the total extent of Ac.303.62 cents of Patta land, an extent of Ac.22.06 cents in Sy.No.61/6, 61/7 etc., of Narsingapeta Village belonging to Sode Veerayya, S/o.Kannayya was submerged in Polavaram Irrigation Project and an award was approved by Spl. Collector, Polavaram Irrigation Project wide Ref.B1/81/2016, dated 21.03.2017 and total compensation was fixed at Rs.2,39,67,676/-. 4 3. The impugned proceeding that indicates that, in the award enquiry, Sri Sode Veerayya, S/o.Kannayya attended on 10.08.2017, gave a statement that he was the absolute owner of Ac.22.06 cents and decided to give a share to his first wife’s only daughter Smt.Sode Seethamma along (7th respondent) with his second wife’s sons and daughters. The awardee Sode Veerayya died on 11.08.2017, leaving behind the following family members and the family member certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kunavaram Mandal on 06.09.2017. Sl. No. Name of the Family members Relationship with the deceased Age Gender Marital status 1 Sri Sode Sankaraiah Son 40 Male Married 2 Kum. SodeRamulamma Daughter 29 Female Unmarried 3 Sri Sode Buchiraju Son 38 Male Married 4 Sri Sode Ramanaiah Son 42 Male Married 5 Sri Sode Bhimaiah Son 49 Male Married 6 Sri SodeSeethamma Daughter born through first wife 52 Female 4. Be it as it may, the 7th respondent Smt. Sode Seethamma, W/o. Kameswara Rao submitted a representation dated 29.06.2016, claiming that the lands submerged in the Polavaram Irrigation Project belonged to her grandfather Sri Sode Kannayya, S/o. Muthyalu got vide settlement Patta SR.No.4357/77, dated 02.05.1977 and the lands are not self-acquired property of her father and in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, women are entitled for equal right as men in the property and hence requested that the compensation of the lands be divided equally among her and her siblings of Sri Sode Veerayya. 5 5. Non-consideration of the representation dated 29.06.2016, submitted by 7th respondent Smt. Sode Seethamma lead her to file a Writ Petition No.20910 of 2016 before the Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, claiming 1/6th share of compensation. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 05.07.2016, and the High Court allowed the petitioner to make a fresh application to respondent No.4 (Special Deputy Collector (LA), PIP, Kunavaram Unit at Chittoor) within a period of 10 days from the date of order, dated 05.07.2016. Upon receiving such application, the respondent No.4 i.e., Special Deputy Collector (LA), Polavaram Irrigation Project, Kunavaram Unit at Chinturu, was directed to evaluate the application and to take appropriate action in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner and the affected parties. 6. It appears from the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition the writ petitioner along with 7th respondent Smt.Sode Seethamma had come for amicable settlement. However, the 7th respondent filed W.P.No.32635 of 2022 for non-consideration of representation dated 11.07.2022. The said Writ Petition got disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent – District Collector to take necessary action on the said representation dated 11.07.2022. Following this Court's direction, the 2nd respondent – District Collector issued the impugned order dated 29.11.2023, stating that, according to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, a daughter is entitled to an equal share in coparcenary properties, on par with sons. As a result, the 7th respondent, Smt. Sode Seethamma, being the daughter of the first wife of the deceased pattadar, late Sri Sode Veeraiah, is entitled to 6 an equal share (1/5th share) along with the four siblings of Sri Sode Veerayya. 7. The said order of the 2nd respondent – District Collector is assailed in the Writ Petition on two grounds: first, that the 7th respondent Smt. Sode Seethamma has agreed orally to part with the compensation amount; and second, the legal contention that the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to the Scheduled Tribes under sub- section (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. For these reasons, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 be set aside. 8. The oral contention by the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent, Smt. Sode Seethamma, is that the petitioners have admitted they would give a share to this respondent. Furthermore, her late father, Sri Sode Veeraiah, testified during the award enquiry that this respondent is also entitled to a share; hence, the order of the 2nd respondent is sustainable, and no interference is required, as there is no flaw in the order delivered by the 2nd respondent District Collector. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the 2nd respondent District Collector has exceeded his jurisdiction and overreached the authority and delivered the impugned order and he is not the authority for the apportionment of the compensation and the 2nd respondent District Collector ought to have been referred to the authority under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter for brevity referred as ‘the Act’). 7 10. The legal contention of the writ petitioners is that Hindu Succession Act has no application to the Schedule Tribes, in this it is imperative to extract the provision: Application of Act: (1) This Act applies- (a) to any person, who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj, (b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and (c) to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs. 11. The Apex Court has considered the scope and powers of the Land Acquisition Officer for making a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in the case of Dr. G. H. Grant v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237, wherein it has been held that the two provisions i.e. Section 18(1) and Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act invest the Collector with power to refer to the Court a dispute as to apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable. Section 76 of Act, 30 of 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) is in pari materia with Section 30 of 8 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA 1894). The Judgment of the Apex Court outlines that the Collector is not authorised to finally decide the conflicting right of the persons interested in the amount of compensation; his primary concern is with the acquisition of the land. But the apportionment by the Collector does not finally determine the rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation. 12. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, manifests that the Act is not applicable to Scheduled Tribe and it is settled law, the Collector is not authorised to finally decide the conflicting right of the persons interested in the amount of compensation; his primary concern is with the acquisition of the land. But the apportionment by the Collector does not finally determine the rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation. His award is conclusive only between the Collector and the persons interested and not among the persons interested inter se. And the Act clearly outlines that when there is an objection to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or a dispute as to apportionment, the Collector has no power to adjudicate. Such matters invariably have to be referred to the authority under the Act. Finally, a dispute to the title of compensation must be decided either in a reference or in a separate suit 13. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the 2nd respondent District Collector ought to have referred the matter to the authority under Section 76 of the Act, instead of encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or authority under the Act 30 of 2013. There is a legal issue involved in this case: it is the specific case of the 9 writ petitioners that the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to the Scheduled Tribes. 14. As rightly argued by the counsel for the writ petitioners the 2nd respondent District Collector ought to have been referred the matter to the authority under Section 76 of the Act instead of encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. And there is legal issue involved in this case, it is the specific case of the writ petitioners that the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to the Schedule Tribe. And it is the case of the 7th respondent that her father testified in the award enquiry and was allotted an extent of Ac.2-00 cents. To answer these contentions, evidence is required, and the matter can be decided by the authority under the act 30 of 2013 or in a civil suit. 15. Under the aforementioned circumstances, the Court sets aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 vide its File No 491/2023/Lands) and directs the 2nd respondent District Collector to refer the issue to the authority under Section 76 of the Act. 16. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 03.11.2025 siva 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.33717 of 2023 Date: 03.11.2025 siva